[Why no 6097-6099?] Was -bigadv SMP 6097-6099
Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team
[Why no 6097-6099?] Was -bigadv SMP 6097-6099
When 37726 applied the bigadv flag on 8 core/threads, we normally were assigned these projects with a few 6900/6901's mixed in rarely from time to time. However, the projects don't seem to be as consistently assigned now. Have these projects ran out?
Last edited by Joe_H on Wed Sep 12, 2012 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Mod note: moved topic as was not a Specific WU problem or bigadv
Reason: Mod note: moved topic as was not a Specific WU problem or bigadv
Editor for teams 37726 and 239902
Re: -bigadv SMP p6097-6099
Priorities change without notice. There still are a number of WUs on that server and some are still being assigned, though I can't tell whether they're p6095-6099.
Posting FAH's log:
How to provide enough info to get helpful support.
How to provide enough info to get helpful support.
Re: -bigadv SMP p6097-6099
FYI...bigadv flag on 8 core/threads...
All bigadv now require a minimum of 16 cores:
viewtopic.php?p=221082#p221082
-
- Posts: 10179
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:30 pm
- Hardware configuration: Intel i7-4770K @ 4.5 GHz, 16 GB DDR3-2133 Corsair Vengence (black/red), EVGA GTX 760 @ 1200 MHz, on an Asus Maximus VI Hero MB (black/red), in a blacked out Antec P280 Tower, with a Xigmatek Night Hawk (black) HSF, Seasonic 760w Platinum (black case, sleeves, wires), 4 SilenX 120mm Case fans with silicon fan gaskets and silicon mounts (all black), a 512GB Samsung SSD (black), and a 2TB Black Western Digital HD (silver/black).
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
Re: -bigadv SMP p6097-6099
In addtion to the 16 core BA minimum, server 128.143.231.202 has been light on available work units (P609x) in the last week, according the server log, so even in you had 16 cores, there were few work units there.
However, 128.143.231.201 has lots of P810x BA work units.
However, 128.143.231.201 has lots of P810x BA work units.
How to provide enough information to get helpful support
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
Re: -bigadv SMP p6097-6099
Rreports suggest that 8c/16t won't make the new deadlines. In fact, my 12c/24t @ 2.66 Ghz won't make the Preferred deadline consistently on project 8101 so it has been switched to regular SMP.
-
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:43 am
- Hardware configuration: Quad Q9550 2.83 contains the GPU 57xx - running SMP and GPU
Quad Q6700 2.66 running just SMP
2P 32core Interlagos SMP on linux
Re: -bigadv SMP p6097-6099
Yes, as previously mentioned; 16 core seems to be some random number to appease the masses but has nothing to do with actual work.bollix47 wrote: In fact, my 12c/24t @ 2.66 Ghz won't make the Preferred deadline consistently on project 8101 so it has been switched to regular SMP.
Some Intel dual zeons 12 core / 24 ht cores O.C.'d will do the work in time.
AMD 16 core will not do the work in time. AMD 32 core will do the work with about 6 hours to spare on the 8101.
Welcome to the new world!
-
- Posts: 10179
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:30 pm
- Hardware configuration: Intel i7-4770K @ 4.5 GHz, 16 GB DDR3-2133 Corsair Vengence (black/red), EVGA GTX 760 @ 1200 MHz, on an Asus Maximus VI Hero MB (black/red), in a blacked out Antec P280 Tower, with a Xigmatek Night Hawk (black) HSF, Seasonic 760w Platinum (black case, sleeves, wires), 4 SilenX 120mm Case fans with silicon fan gaskets and silicon mounts (all black), a 512GB Samsung SSD (black), and a 2TB Black Western Digital HD (silver/black).
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
Re: -bigadv SMP p6097-6099
Well, not nothing. You still need 16 c/t to get assignments, and it does represent a general performance target.
How to provide enough information to get helpful support
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
-
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:43 am
- Hardware configuration: Quad Q9550 2.83 contains the GPU 57xx - running SMP and GPU
Quad Q6700 2.66 running just SMP
2P 32core Interlagos SMP on linux
Re: -bigadv SMP p6097-6099
I agree 7im!7im wrote:and it does represent a general performance target.
Problem is that it doesn't meet the minimum required to meet the prefered deadline. And a stock clocked 16 true core / ht core does not exist yet that will meet the deadlines for BigAdv.
And that's all I got to say about that! credit --- Forrest Gump.
-
- Posts: 10179
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:30 pm
- Hardware configuration: Intel i7-4770K @ 4.5 GHz, 16 GB DDR3-2133 Corsair Vengence (black/red), EVGA GTX 760 @ 1200 MHz, on an Asus Maximus VI Hero MB (black/red), in a blacked out Antec P280 Tower, with a Xigmatek Night Hawk (black) HSF, Seasonic 760w Platinum (black case, sleeves, wires), 4 SilenX 120mm Case fans with silicon fan gaskets and silicon mounts (all black), a 512GB Samsung SSD (black), and a 2TB Black Western Digital HD (silver/black).
- Location: Arizona
- Contact:
Re: -bigadv SMP p6097-6099
How appropriate.
Like I said, a general target, a core minimum, so the answer to questions like this are more self evident. That's the whole point.
If you want to keep waiting for perfect, be my guest. But please make a little room to let the rest of us play through.
Like I said, a general target, a core minimum, so the answer to questions like this are more self evident. That's the whole point.
If you want to keep waiting for perfect, be my guest. But please make a little room to let the rest of us play through.
How to provide enough information to get helpful support
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
Re: -bigadv SMP p6097-6099
I'm well aware that bigadv for 8 and 12 cores/threads, mainly 6900, 6901, 6903, 6904 on 8 or 12 cores/threads, is no longer assigned to less than 16 cores/threads, but thank you for pointing that out. July 30th was a bad day for us all, especially the Team Competition I manage.
Our folders used to be assigned 6097-6099 almost constantly on 8 cores, and are no longer getting them. These work units were still being assigned consistently if we applied a -bigadv flag before and after the announcement. Even 4 core/thread folders were getting them by applying this flag. These units were far more steady and consistent in terms of PPD than folding on regular or advanced methods, especially for 4 cores/threads. So, that's the point of my question. We aren't seeing these units very often anymore at all. Have they ran out, or have they been shifted over to another folding method?
Our folders used to be assigned 6097-6099 almost constantly on 8 cores, and are no longer getting them. These work units were still being assigned consistently if we applied a -bigadv flag before and after the announcement. Even 4 core/thread folders were getting them by applying this flag. These units were far more steady and consistent in terms of PPD than folding on regular or advanced methods, especially for 4 cores/threads. So, that's the point of my question. We aren't seeing these units very often anymore at all. Have they ran out, or have they been shifted over to another folding method?
Editor for teams 37726 and 239902
-
- Posts: 1164
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:22 pm
- Hardware configuration: Asus Z8NA D6C, 2 x5670@3.2 Ghz, , 12gb Ram, GTX 980ti, AX650 PSU, win 10 (daily use)
Asus Z87 WS, Xeon E3-1230L v3, 8gb ram, KFA GTX 1080, EVGA 750ti , AX760 PSU, Mint 18.2 OS
Not currently folding
Asus Z9PE- D8 WS, 2 E5-2665@2.3 Ghz, 16Gb 1.35v Ram, Ubuntu (Fold only)
Asus Z9PA, 2 Ivy 12 core, 16gb Ram, H folding appliance (fold only) - Location: Jersey, Channel islands
Re: [Why no 6097-6099?] Was -bigadv SMP 6097-6099
I was not aware that these projects were -bigadv, looking at the project summary it looks like a large, normal smp project using the a3 core
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 7937
- Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:41 pm
- Hardware configuration: Mac Pro 2.8 quad 12 GB smp4
MacBook Pro 2.9 i7 8 GB smp2 - Location: W. MA
Re: [Why no 6097-6099?] Was -bigadv SMP 6097-6099
No these projects are not bigadv. The question was why using a no longer appropriate flag for their equipment was not getting them these Projects. As for reasons, this is probably due to adjustments in the settings for the work and assignment servers in connection with this announcement back in July, http://folding.typepad.com/news/2012/07 ... oject.html. They stated there was a backlog of high priority A4 work and added a 10% bonus for it.
Looking at the serverstat listing, the priority for servers with A3 WU's has generally been set lower than that for A4 servers. I would guess that would cause systems capable of doing A4 projects to be preferably assigned to work servers with A4 work. For those systems limited to A3 work, there are many more projects besides the listed 3 on other servers.
Looking at the serverstat listing, the priority for servers with A3 WU's has generally been set lower than that for A4 servers. I would guess that would cause systems capable of doing A4 projects to be preferably assigned to work servers with A4 work. For those systems limited to A3 work, there are many more projects besides the listed 3 on other servers.
iMac 2.8 i7 12 GB smp8, Mac Pro 2.8 quad 12 GB smp6
MacBook Pro 2.9 i7 8 GB smp3
Re: [Why no 6097-6099?] Was -bigadv SMP 6097-6099
That's what I was guessing. Thank you for your answer.
Editor for teams 37726 and 239902